In the case of the Flame this will be still a more recent KitKat version, right? Are we far behind with Gonk on the Flame?
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Naoki Hirata <[email protected]> wrote: > It means that contributors could get a more recent gonk version. Going > forward we could potentially do this once a month or so or whenever the > gonk layer updates. (After testing) > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Mihai Barbat <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Naoki Hirata <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Specifically for the Flame device, I am currently blocked by >>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1237127 in order to make >>> FOTA possible for Flame. The goal is to supply T2M with a FOTA build , >>> have the host the build and then change our FOTA servers to point to that >>> FOTA build for any build lower than it and then any other newer build can >>> be FOTA'ed by that base build. >>> >>> This is in the works. Technically T2M is hosting the build so this will >>> resolve any legal issues of distribution. (Process was reviewed by our >>> legal team and OK'ed). >>> >> >> what will be the gains of this update? >> >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Naoki >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Alexandre Lissy <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Le 11/01/2016 14:39, [email protected] a écrit : >>>> > Le lundi 11 janvier 2016 11:56:23 UTC+1, Alexandre Lissy a écrit : >>>> >> >>>> >> And if you look carefully, that is not being redistributed from >>>> >> Mozilla's servers, but from T2M ones. >>>> > >>>> > I didn't noticed it! Now it's clear that "not being redistributed" >>>> has to be understood from Mozilla's point of view, not as "not being >>>> redistributed at all". I didn't catch it beforehand. >>>> > >>>> >> Flashing new base system from T2M >>>> > >>>> > OK. So does it mean that Gonk upgrade can only be initiated by >>>> manufacturers? And then Mozilla takes on the work to adapt Gecko/Gaia code >>>> to the updated Gonk API, independently of the FxOS version? >>>> >>>> At some point, given this is closed source and not in the hands of >>>> Mozilla, I see no other way than the manufacturer/OEM doing that. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>> Is mixing files coming from the same Android "version" (KK 4.4.2 in >>>> the present case) but not necessary the same Android "build" (KVT49L vs >>>> KOT49H) allowed (there's no problem with exported symbols in kernel modules >>>> for example)? >>>> > >>>> > So, is a locally built KOT49H kernel able to interact with KVT49L >>>> binary blobs/proprietary firmware provided by the manufacturer (T2M in the >>>> present case)? >>>> >>>> That depends on the differences ... I think there is no change to >>>> interfaces with minor releases so it should be okay. >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Thanks for the clarifications anyway. >>>> > >>>> > Émeric >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > dev-fxos mailing list >>>> > [email protected] >>>> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos >>>> > >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dev-fxos mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dev-fxos mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
